HUKUMSINGH MAJBOOTSINGH CHAUHAN Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was appointed Chairman in the Revenue inspector's office in 1953 and was confirmed in that capacity in 1956. The petitioner was suspended on 6-11-1974 pending a departmental enquiry into the charges contained in the charge-sheet Annexure-A. The substance of the charges levelled against him was of habitual unauthorized absence from duty for a long period and of intimidating the superior officer-the Revenue inspector-to withdraw the report made by him against the petitioner of his unauthorized absence under threat of assault. The petitioner denied these charges and consequently a departmental enquiry was held for enquiring into their correctness. The Enquiry Officer found these charges proved against the petitioner in his report Annexure-C dated 19-4-1975. A show cause notice was acordingly given to the petitioner and after considering his reply to it, the Collector, Tikamgarh, by his order Annexure-E dated 16-12-1975 accepting the report of the Enquiry Officer, terminated the petitioner's service. Petitioner's appeal to the Commissioner, Sagar Division, was dismissed by order Annexure-F dated 23-8-1976, and the State Government has thereafter by its order Annexure-G dated 10-3-1977 rejected the petitioner's revision. Aggrieved by the termination of his service in this manner, the petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging these orders.

(2.) SHRI D. M. Dharmadbikari, learned counsel for the petitioner, has advanced several arguments in support of this petition, which are the following, viz.-

(3.) THE first contention of learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted. The three reports P-1, P-2 and P-3 in the record of the depart-mental enquiry were produced by the Revenue Inspector and the Tahsildar who had made those reports, when they were examined as witnesses in the departmenal enquiry in the petitioner's presence. The petitioner made no such grievance during the departmental enquiry or even in his reply to the show cause notice given at a time when the contents of the Enquiry Officer's report were known to him. It is obvious that no such complaint was made then by the petitioner for the reason that he was aware of the contents of those reports on the basis of which the charges were levelled against him leading to the departmental enquiry. No prejudice of any kind to the petitioner has been shown to us. Learned counsel contended that without knowing the contents of these reports the petitioner was unable to properly cross-examine the Revenue Inspector and the Tahsildar. If that was really the petitioner's grievance there is no reason why the petitioner would not make such a complaint during the departmental enquiry itself when these reports were produced by the two witnesses in his presence. We have not even been shown that the contents of these reports were in any manner at variance with the statements made by the Revenue Inspector and the Tahsildar during the departmental enquiry so as to suggest that the petitioner was prejudiced in his right of cross-examination of these witnesses. We are satisfied that this ground is taken by the petitioner only as an after-thought in an attempt to support his case. This contention is, therefore rejected.